- Care home
Seaford Head Retirement Home
Assessment report published 21 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Our view of the service
About the service
Seaford Head Retirement Home is residential care home providing accommodation and personal care support for up to 16 people. Support was provided across 3 floors which were accessible via the use of stair lift. The home had an enclosed communal garden which people were free to use as they wished. At the time of inspection there were 15 people living at the service.
Who the service is for
This service supports older people living with dementia and multiple needs.
Key findings
We visited the home on 29 September and 1 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People told us that they felt safe living at the home and relatives spoke positively about the care and support that was provided. Staff told us how accidents and incidents were reported. Systems were in place to investigate incidents with the registered manager having oversight to ensure that timely and appropriate actions were taken to minimise risk and maintain people’s safety. For example, a monthly falls audit was completed to identify any patterns or emerging themes that may be influencing people’s ability to mobilise safely. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to keep people safe, and clear safeguarding procedures were in place.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice, control, and freedom over their lives. However, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were not always followed. Records relating to mental capacity assessments did not consistently evidence that best practice principles around decision-making had been followed.
People were encouraged to make decisions about managing risk and how they wanted to live their lives. Staff supported people to understand potential risks and worked with them to identify practical ways to reduce these, whilst avoiding unnecessary restrictions. This enabled people to make choices and to continue to do the things that were important to them. Where additional support was needed, staff provided this in a proportionate and proactive way that balanced people’s rights to take positive risk, whilst maintaining their safety and promoting wellbeing.
The environment was clean, well maintained and free from hazards. Appropriate safety checks were completed, and equipment was in good order. For example, auditing was in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, with the registered manager taking responsibility for key areas.
Staffing levels were maintained with no recent reliance on agency staff. People benefitted from a consistent staff team who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences, and routines. Staff had the training and support needed to provide safe care. They described managers as visible and supportive, with one staff member saying, “The team are supportive especially the managers, we all help each other out.” Safe recruitment processes, induction, supervision, and competency checks helped maintain good standards of care.
People received their medicines as prescribed and at the required times, with appropriate monitoring in place. Medicines were stored safely and the procedures of ordering, receiving, and returning medicines followed best practice guidance. Staff had received training in medicines management and administration and had access to the relevant policy. Only staff who had been assessed as competent by the registered manager were able to administer medicines. The service had worked closely with the Medicines Optimisation in Care Homes (MOCH) team to ensure medicines were safely and appropriately managed.
People were actively involved in developing and reviewing their care plans, ensuring that their views, preferences and individual needs were central to the care they received. Recognised screening tools were used to monitor people’s health and identify changing needs, enabling staff to respond promptly. For example, people’s weights were regularly recorded, and timely referrals were completed to other professionals such as dieticians and community nursing teams for advice and guidance. A professional who had worked with the service told us, “We have a good working relationship with Seaford Head Retirement Home and have always found the staff and management friendly, approachable and easy to communicate with. They contact us appropriately regarding people’s medication and any queries or issues that come up.”
One relative told us, “I am always impressed with the level of care and attention [name] is receiving especially with the advice they seek from the local GP surgery to ensure [name’s] medication and care needs are fully updated and modified if required.” People were supported to discuss their wishes for future care including end of life, with these being clearly recorded so that staff understood what was important to each person. This ensured that people received care that was personalised, responsive and respectful of their choices.
The registered manager was an active part of daily life. They spent time with people and staff, observing how care was delivered and were readily available to provide support when needed. There was a positive and inclusive culture at the service. People felt listened to and were encouraged to share their views about care and support. Regular residents and staff meetings were held. Feedback was used to help shape how care was provided and ensured that everyone had an active role in this. Governance systems were effective in monitoring and managing the quality of care. This supported the service to maintain standards and respond appropriately when improvements were needed.
People's experience of this service
We spoke to people and their relatives about their experience of living at the service, they were consistently positive about the home and the staff that supported them. One person said, “It’s very welcoming here and homely.” Another person said, “[Staff] are amazing, they are very kind and always offer to help me.”
We observed that people were treated with dignity and respect by kind and caring staff who were passionate about their jobs. Person-centred care was provided in a way that encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves, with staff providing reassurance and assistance when needed, whilst respecting their independence and personal space. One person told us, “It’s very important for me to remain as independent as possible, staff are very aware of this and always encourage me to do things for myself.”
People had access to meaningful activities that reflected their individual interests, hobbies and preferences. For some people, this included attending a community-based memory-making club, while others enjoyed in house activities such as spending time with visiting animals. People and their relatives told us that this promoted their wellbeing and social engagement. One relative told us “The activities offered are very good, they recently had a local entertainer visit the home, he was very funny and everyone joined in signing. People were dancing with staff, and they seemed to really enjoy it”.
People and their relatives told us that they were seen as unique individuals with full lives. Staff took the time to understand their histories, preferences, relationships and what mattered most to them. One relative told us, “All the staff seem to understand [name’s] sense of humour and seek to engage them in conversations that makes them smile and laugh. [Name] seems very fond of the regular staff and has a strong bond with them. They are always pleased to see them when I have taken them out of the retirement home for a short trip”.
Relatives told us how the staff and management made them feel them feel included in their loved one’s care. One relative told us, “On [Name’s] birthday the care home went above and beyond welcoming family and ensuring [Name] had a wonderful time in the garden surrounded by grandchildren and great grandchildren. We have lovely memories of those days which we all cherish.”
People and their relatives spoke highly of the running of the service, they felt listened to and that their views and opinions were genuinely valued. One relative told us, “Communication is very good, Amazing in fact. The [registered manager] and [deputy manager] always keep me updated about what they are doing, they even text me to let me know how they are. I feel reassured knowing they are somewhere that is so attentive.”